Great Trappy vs FAA attorney interview

[dazzab]

Bartman, again the voice of reason and reality.
Look at some of their stuff on YouTube. Almost all of it involves overflying the public or flying close to buildings.

Is there any information on how much damage or how many injuries have resulted from their flying? I think they would challenge those who think they are flying in an unsafe manner. Without some actual facts rather than opinions it's hard to evaluate.

 

[Jackella]

agree with Crashmaster,lets be right most of us have the skills and the equipment to fly over towns and public but do we..no...fly over pals at meets yes because they are willing participants and know the risks but hit someone from the general public and in this world of sueing ,it invites a whole world of trouble.just use a bit of common sense I say

 

[CrashMaster]

I still can't see how you can even contemplate a defence Team Black Sheep. If you or I fly near or over people not under our direct control and without their express consent you are, potentially, endangering their and other's safety. In the city flights it is clear that the public has been over-flown. Convince me that all those below or nearby were part of the whole filming trips!

I have no doubt that Team Black Sheep's equipment is cutting edge, safe and reliable, even their flying skills are probably top notch, but it doesn't alter the fact they have endangered others without their express knowledge or consent.

Can't anyone see how they are endangering our sport by their high profile exploits.

 

[kloner]

It isn't hurting anything. It is challenging the law that doesn't exist. Just because a select few might not like it lets face it, these are park models and not hurting a sole. I've been hit by my own gear and I'm still alive and well. Even bounced a 600 single rotor off myself, not that big of deal. I do know folks less lucky but there still alive too, little different looking but hey. I'm more worried about full size aircraft myself. Hundreds of gallons of fuel and souls aboard

 

[Bartman]

what do you think your disco would do if it were ingested into a jet engine with souls aboard? you might not allow it to happen but the video footage available on youtube suggest there are a lot of other people that don't practice safe flying

here's an example of what the FPV community has to offer
http://fpvlab.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1810.html?

as a full scale pilot it's a little unnerving to see these discussions taking place.

What's the risk though? Low altitude operators include, traffic watch flights, medical helicopters, every other helicopter (Helicopters have low altitude airways mapped out that allow them to zip around even below low cloud decks), banner towing aircraft, a lot of antique aircraft (I don't think I've ever been above 1000' in a Piper Cub), aircraft that are departing or arriving at airports, crop dusting planes and helicopters, forest fire patrols, pipeline patrols, bug control sprayers ( I had an interaction with a bug control helicopter while out flying near an abandoned munitions loading depot, he saw me, I saw him and landed while he stood by to do his next pass), gliders, parachuting operations, ultralights, powered parachutes, hot air balloons, etc.

 

[Bartman]

so far the FAA hasn't said you can't do it (for recreation) but they have tried to balance the interests of everyone using the airspace. trappy may very well win and it may be a good thing for commercial operators in the short run but be forewarned, the FAA has a very long memory and they don't take losses very well. whatever "balance" we may have been hoping for will likely be modified with a vengeance when they do finally get around to issuing regulations. for anyone not familiar with the FAA, they don't stop until they say stop.

regarding the rules, it does't sound like they're trying to enforce a specific rule but using one of their catch-alls ("unsafe operations" can be defined however they'd like, "creating a hazard to air traffic" is another one).

 

[Carapau]

Even bounced a 600 single rotor off myself, not that big of deal.

If that's your attitude to safety then your credibility is out of the window. Not that big a deal being hit by a 600? Wow, that thing can easily kill.

 

[jes1111]

regarding the rules, it does't sound like they're trying to enforce a specific rule but using one of their catch-alls ("unsafe operations" can be defined however they'd like, "creating a hazard to air traffic" is another one).

From the Motion to Dismiss:

The FAA seeks a penalty for “careless or reckless” operation under 14 C.F.R. § 91.13

Their logic is that since it was a "paid for" flight then this FAR applies. The Federal Air Regulation is drafted entirely for full-size aircraft, with no mention at all of unmanned operation - it's the FAR you would be charged with violating if you flew a full-size aircraft whilst drunk, for example.

 

[Kilby]

I love this argument. It never gets old. ;-)


For what it's worth, everyone says how dangerous Trappy & crew are being, but have there been any incidents? They have flown hundreds of flights, yet no incidents, so if anything, I'd say the experience argues the exact opposite of most people's complaint. While I wouldn't want to see just anyone going out there and doing the same flights, I think they have proven that even in the early stage of this technology, they could be operated without incident in populated areas providing the pilot and gear are up to speed.

Personally, I think we will look back on these discussions one day and laugh that we ever thought this way. Kind of like the argument that automobiles would scare the horses way back when. The technology will catch up soon and provide a solution for flying over crowds. Things like alarms, standard parachutes and airbags will make these aircraft safe and we won't think twice about flying over large groups. We aren't there yet, but those days are coming sooner or later.

 

[Stone-D]

I have no problem with regular aircraft flying over my head, because I am a) 99% sure they've got a license and the years of training to go with it, and b) that license is backed worldwide by a regional body I can hold responsible and demand recourse from in the event of an incident.

If I see a quad flying overhead, I have no idea whether it's a 100g mini or a 2Kg disco. Is it piloted by someone experienced with manual flight, or some tard like that guy in Manhattan with his first quad?

 

[PeteDee]

Unfortunately this is not true. CASA is only in the process of examining possible new policies. At the moment, if you want to do aerial photography commercially you will be looking at a long list of requirements that are much more applicable to becoming a private pilot than to flying UAVs. Your business will spend thousands of dollars and a great deal of time which isn't necessary simply to meet outdated policies. To make matters worse, even though CASA is working with the industry, they simply don't have the funding to do the work required. So it's going to take years to get a sensible system in place. Good intentions are a good start but I'd much rather see significant progress and sooner than later.

What I said is true Darryl, they are at least on the surface taking a good attitude, sure it is going to take a long time but it is better than what the FAA is doing.

Pete

 

[jforkner]

Maybe a little perspective...

Seems to me that a lot of technology advancements carry some risk, and there will always be someone who is irresponsible using that technology. That doesn't mean the technology is bad, or other, more responsible folks should be denied the technology. This will be an interesting court case, to be sure. But to offer a little perspective...how about a self-driving automobile in traffic? Not sure this is any safer and nobody seems to be jumping all over it.

Jack

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/cdgQpa1pUUE?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BrmorE5W1tM?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

 

[Lanzar]

Looks like they droped the charges and if this will be true then TRAPPY opened USA for business. LEGIT OFC.

Well TRAPY is for shure a nice guy and since they started this all with some crazy risky stuff they will probably also be the ones that will beat the FAA rule and then the USA goverment and FAA will finally start to write some laws and stop sitting on their asses and asking them selves on how to do it properly. Meanwhile the world is waiting and they will copy paste the Americans.

 

[PeteDee]

Seems to me that a lot of technology advancements carry some risk, and there will always be someone who is irresponsible using that technology. That doesn't mean the technology is bad, or other, more responsible folks should be denied the technology. This will be an interesting court case, to be sure. But to offer a little perspective...how about a self-driving automobile in traffic? Not sure this is any safer and nobody seems to be jumping all over it.

Jack

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/cdgQpa1pUUE?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BrmorE5W1tM?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Finally "Johnny Cabs", just like in Total Recall, about time.

 

[PeteDee]

Looks like they droped the charges and if this will be true then TRAPPY opened USA for business. LEGIT OFC.

Well TRAPY is for shure a nice guy and since they started this all with some crazy risky stuff they will probably also be the ones that will beat the FAA rule and then the USA goverment and FAA will finally start to write some laws and stop sitting on their asses and asking them selves on how to do it properly. Meanwhile the world is waiting and they will copy paste the Americans.

Where did you see that they have dropped the charges?

 

[fj_montilla]

Hi folks, Don't know if you've seen this, but here's a link to a recent Scientific American article on FAA regulation regarding UAS. It references Trappy's ordeal, among others. Interesting read.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=drone-pilot-challenges-faa-commercial-flying-ban

Cheers to all,